Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state’s 2024 ballot - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15298991
Source

The Colorado supreme court on Tuesday declared Donald Trump ineligible to hold office again under the US constitution’s insurrection clause.

In a historic decision, the justices ordered that he be removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot, after determining that he engaged in insurrection on 6 January 2021. The ruling sets up a likely showdown in the nation’s highest court to settle whether the January 6 attack on the Capitol amounted to an insurrection, and whether Trump’s involvement disqualifies him from running for office.

The 4-3 decision by the Colorado supreme court marks the first time a presidential candidate has been deemed unqualified for office under a rarely used provision that bars insurrectionists from holding office.

“A majority of the court holds that Trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment,” the court, whose justices were all appointed by Democratic governors, wrote in its ruling.

Trump has vowed to appeal to the US supreme court, his campaign said. “We have full confidence that the US supreme court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits,” said Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesperson.

The ruling applies only to the state’s 5 March Republican primary, but its conclusion would likely also affect Trump’s status for the 5 November general election. Nonpartisan US election forecasters view Colorado as safely Democratic, meaning that Joe Biden will likely carry the state regardless of Trump’s fate.

The decision is a victory for advocacy groups and anti-Trump voters who have mounted several similar legal challenges to the former president’s candidacy under section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was enacted after the American civil war to keep former Confederates from returning to power.

Richard Friedman, a University of Michigan law professor, said the decision should not be surprising.

“He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States. And then he did what he could to subvert the lawful processes for electing our president,” Friedman said. “The nation must accept the decision and move on.”

If the US supreme court upholds the Colorado decision, Friedman said, there will be further questions, since this is new territory for a presidential candidate. “Does the court make a nationwide determination that Trump is ineligible, or does it merely say that a decision like Colorado’s is justifiable, and leave it to the processes of each stated?” he said.

Colorado’s highest court overturned a ruling from a district court judge who found that the Trump incited an insurrection for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, but said he could not be barred from the ballot because it was unclear that the provision was intended to cover the presidency.

The court has paused its ruling from taking effect until 4 January, to allow for appeals. If the case is taken to the US supreme court, the pause will remain in effect until that case is resolved.

The case was brought by a group of Colorado voters, aided by the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Crew). Advocates have hoped to use the case to boost a wider disqualification effort and potentially put the issue before the US supreme court, which has the final say on constitutional matters.

Trump “betrayed his oath to the Constitution by engaging in insurrection against it, and by doing so he made himself ineligible for public office”, said Sean Grimsley, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “We hope and believe other states will now follow suit.”

Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee (RNC) chairwoman, called the decision “election interference” in a social media post. She continued that the RNC legal team “looks forward to helping fight for a victory”.

Vivek Ramaswamy, the GOP presidential candidate, called the court’s action “an actual attack on democracy”.

Ramaswamy pledged to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary and called on other candidates – Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Nikki Haley – to do the same unless Trump is allowed to be on the ballot.

“The framers of the 14th amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision being weaponized … to prevent a former president from seeking re-election,” Ramaswamy said.

Similar lawsuits in Minnesota and New Hampshire were dismissed on procedural grounds. In Michigan, plaintiffs arguing a similar case have appealed to the state’s supreme court after lower courts declined to disqualify Trump.

Reuters contributed to this report


Risky move by the Democrats
#15298996
I think it will not be successful.

As it stands, Trump's name will be included unless SCOTUS officially decides that it is lawful and/or proper to exclude it (Source).

Which makes me think that it could even have just been done with the hopes of passing the buck and coming to a national consensus...

At which point, I think it will be even better than a 5-4 decision in Trump's favor.
#15299000
How can a court even rule otherwise?

It's hard to deny Jan 6th was an insurrection and Trump did provide "aid and comfort", although the meaning of that is somewhat unclear I guess.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
#15299001
Verv wrote:I think it will not be successful.

As it stands, Trump's name will be included unless SCOTUS officially decides that it is lawful and/or proper to exclude it (Source).

Which makes me think that it could even have just been done with the hopes of passing the buck and coming to a national consensus...

At which point, I think it will be even better than a 5-4 decision in Trump's favor.


The GOP has been working for decades to gut the VRA and give all control over elections to the states. Either they let this stand, or they accidently undo a lot of progress they've made empowering state legislatures and reverting some control to federal hands.

It'll be interesting to see which way the owners of the Supreme Court tell them to play it.

Will it be a Gore Bush "this election only" decision?

Will they change the facts of the case to make Trump not found legally guilty of insurrection in Colorado, and violate state sovereignty?

Will they sacrifice Trump for the long term war against the VRA?

Will they try to weasel out of it procedurally by arguing that the Presidency isn't a "federal officer"?
#15299006
"(Retired) Judge Luttig--whom I regard as a great patriot for his role in persuading Mike Pence to ignore Trump's entreaties and threats leading up to January 6, 2021--has been one of the most vocal proponents of disqualifying Trump. I agree with various of the points he makes, especially that Section 3 is self-executing in the sense that it does not require congressional action to be effective. As I have previously explained, the last sentence of Section 3 ("But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability") pretty clearly implies that absent congressional action, the default is disqualification."

That means it is up to the states to handle as they see fit.

https://www.dorfonlaw.org/2023/11/one-of-judge-luttigs-14th-amendment.html
#15299020
Rugoz wrote:How can a court even rule otherwise?

It's hard to deny Jan 6th was an insurrection and Trump did provide "aid and comfort", although the meaning of that is somewhat unclear I guess.


Not until that case is tried. What if Trump is found not guilty in federal court?

I won't be surprised if he is, but as long as he is not found guilty he is entitled to presumption of innocence.

Let's keep in mind treason is a felony.
#15299028
wat0n wrote:Not until that case is tried. What if Trump is found not guilty in federal court?


He was found guilty of insurrection by a Colorado court. He is guilty of insurrection, legally, in the state of Colorado. Federal courts can't really change this fact.

That's what federalism is. He can be found innocent of insurrection federally, but will remain guilty in Colorado.
#15299030
Fasces wrote:He was found guilty of insurrection by a Colorado court. He is guilty of insurrection, legally, in the state of Colorado. Federal courts can't really change this fact.

That's what federalism is. He can be found innocent of insurrection federally, but will remain guilty in Colorado.


Does Colorado have jurisdiction over what happens in Washington DC?
#15299033
wat0n wrote:Does Colorado have jurisdiction over what happens in Washington DC?


Colorado absolutely has jurisdiction over its ballots. Colorado absolutely has jurisdiction over questions of state law. :eh:

Timeline of events:

    1. Republicans sue to have Trump removed from the ballot under Article 14 in Colorado.
    2. A court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The court ruled that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado as a consequence.
    3. An appeals court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The court ruled that Trump should not be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, because Amendment 14 was ambigious and it was not clear whether these provisions applied to the Presidency.
    4. The Colorado Supreme Court rules that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 14 is not ambigious and clearly applies to the Presidency, and should be removed from the ballot - but stayed their ruling until January 4th to get Trump time to appeal.

At no point have the facts of the case been in question - Trump is guilty under Colorado law of insurrection. It is exceedingly rare for appeals courts to change facts of a case. More so for a Federal Court to do so on a question of State Law.

The Supreme Court will decide one of three things:

    a) states do not have the ability to restrict ballot access for candidates for federal office (a huge assault on state sovereignty that would undermine what the Federalist Society has been trying to achieve for decades by giving Congress/federal government a huge amount of power in how states conduct their elections)
    b) The Presidency is not a federal office which individuals guilty of insurrection can be barred from hold (an absurd interpretation)
    c) Colorado has the right to bar Trump from office because he is guilty of treason under state law
    d) a bonus fourth thing - Trump is actually not guilty of insurrection under Colorado law (a very rare thing for Appeals Courts to do, they are not there to decide on facts of a case, only on matters of procedure - and may not even be possible for a federal court to review the facts of state law).
#15299037
Fasces wrote:Colorado absolutely has jurisdiction over its ballots. Colorado absolutely has jurisdiction over questions of state law. :eh:

Timeline of events:

    1. Republicans sue to have Trump removed from the ballot under Article 14 in Colorado.
    2. A court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The court ruled that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado as a consequence.
    3. An appeals court ruled that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The court ruled that Trump should not be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado, because Amendment 14 was ambigious and it was not clear whether these provisions applied to the Presidency.
    4. The Colorado Supreme Court rules that Trump was guilty of insurrection. The Supreme Court ruled that Amendment 14 is not ambigious and clearly applies to the Presidency, and should be removed from the ballot - but stayed their ruling until January 4th to get Trump time to appeal.

At no point have the facts of the case been in question - Trump is guilty under Colorado law of insurrection. It is exceedingly rare for appeals courts to change facts of a case. More so for a Federal Court to do so on a question of State Law.

The Supreme Court will decide one of three things:

    a) states do not have the ability to restrict ballot access for candidates for federal office (a huge assault on state sovereignty that would undermine what the Federalist Society has been trying to achieve for decades by giving Congress/federal government a huge amount of power in how states conduct their elections)
    b) The Presidency is not a federal office which individuals guilty of insurrection can be barred from hold (an absurd interpretation)
    c) Colorado has the right to bar Trump from office because he is guilty of treason under state law
    d) a bonus fourth thing - Trump is actually not guilty of insurrection under Colorado law (a very rare thing for Appeals Courts to do, they are not there to decide on facts of a case, only on matters of procedure - and may not even be possible for a federal court to review the facts of state law).


Insurrection against Colorado's state government is a class 5 felony there. Does Colorado even have jurisdiction to hear cases about insurrection committed against the federal government?
#15299041
Fasces wrote:Insurrection against Colorado's state government is a class 5 felony there. Does Colorado even have jurisdiction to hear cases about insurrection committed against the federal government?


I don't think this ruling convicted Trump of anything or that criminal law is even relevant. What matters is what the 14th amendment means with "insurrection or rebellion".
#15299043
wat0n wrote: Does Colorado even have jurisdiction to hear cases about insurrection committed against the federal government?


It wasn't a criminal case, it was a civil one - and the Colorado courts have determined that it is a legal fact in the state of Colorado that Trump is guilty of insurrection and consequently, should not be on the ballot.

Rugoz wrote:What matters is what the 14th amendment means with "insurrection or rebellion".


The court's decisions are public. This isn't in question - what is in question is whether the 14th Amendment covers the office of the President. The first court said yes. The second court said no. The Supreme Court said yes. Now this question is being shunted to the USSC, if Trump appeals it.
#15299045
What other reasons?

Fasces wrote:The Supreme Court will decide one of three things:

    a) states do not have the inherent ability to restrict ballot access for candidates for federal office (a huge assault on state sovereignty that would undermine what the Federalist Society has been trying to achieve for decades by giving Congress/federal government a huge amount of power in how states conduct their elections)
    b) The Presidency is not a federal office which individuals guilty of insurrection can be barred from hold (an absurd interpretation)
    c) Colorado has the right to bar Trump from office because he is guilty of treason under state law
    d) a bonus fourth thing - Trump is actually not guilty of insurrection under Colorado law (a very rare thing for Appeals Courts to do, they are not there to decide on facts of a case, only on matters of procedure - and may not even be possible for a federal court to review the facts of state law).
#15299048
Fasces wrote:It wasn't a criminal case, it was a civil one - and the Colorado courts have determined that it is a legal fact in the state of Colorado that Trump is guilty of insurrection and consequently, should not be on the ballot.


Rugoz wrote:I don't think this ruling convicted Trump of anything or that criminal law is even relevant. What matters is what the 14th amendment means with "insurrection or rebellion".


How can insurrection be just a civil case? It's an offense against the state, by definition.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 16
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

But two super wrongs do not make a right. agree

A man from Oklahoma (United States) who travelled[…]

Leftists have often and openly condemned the Octob[…]

@FiveofSwords " chimpanzee " Havin[…]